DarkStar wrote:You're trying to say I have flamed you? Puh-leeze.
The insults started flowing early from your end. Admittedly, they're rather amateurish.
You have everything I have said, in this thread and on the site. I have explained my position fully, and at no point has any foolish notion such as your "there is no physical interaction taking place between gaseous matter and energy beam" BS been a part, implicitly or explicitly, of my theory.
Stop the straw men.
You failed or refused to explain the lack of atmospheric turbulence where the beam would have propagated through to the surface if there is no planetary shield to block it. You put forth the claim that your MUM theory explains this. Then you fail to explain it. No matter what mechanism you wish to invoke to explain the superlaser, there must be a physical interaction between the beam's energy field and the atmosphere of the planet. That is no strawman. It is a gaping great hole in your case.
It is simplest, but it is not an explanation. DET utterly fails to address the nature of the destruction, or the various other effects that are a part of it.
Beam strikes planet. Planet goes
BOOM! Planetary matter is ejected violently outward at several tens of thousands of kilometres per second, which conforms to DET.
It requires no recourse to exotic Mysterious Unknown Mechanisms which you invoke but either fail or refuse to detail.
A theory can only be as detailed as the evidence allows. Were I to go in-depth with a description of the mechanism, you would no doubt attack my conjectures. Similarly, by taking the safest course and not going into detail, I have invited attack on those grounds. If you'd listen first instead of never, you might get somewhere.
If your conjectures are unsupported —or unsupportable— they are naturally subject to attack. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you. I'm listening hard, but so far I haven't heard anything satisfactory which supports your conjecture, and your simply saying "it is because it is" over and over and over again does not make your case any stronger.
I have made observations, crafted a hypothesis, and observed the hypothesis survive and thrive in the light of new evidence (ship-killer shots from the DS2, the off-center explosion of the DS2, et cetera).
Once again, I am not responsible for your fantasies.
I don't have to know what it is to know what it does.
An interesting wrinkle on the Appeal to Ignorance argument.
Early Darwinians knew very little about the nuts and bolts of how heredity worked and how the environment shaped life . . . but, according to your argument, the fact that Darwin didn't explain DNA in "Origin of Species" makes evolution the BS idea of the age.
Now who's putting up strawmen? Darwinians certainly could demonstrate the process of more advanced forms of life developing from the earliest stages and how enviroment shaped evolutionary choices through selection. The fossil record gave us the clear evidence for evolutionary development.
Well, that's a stupid argument, and I won't support it.
No, you'll only spout it while putting up your own strawmen.
If you're going to offer a theory to explain something, you first have to justify just why the theory wins over competing theories on its own merits
As has been done, repeatedly.
Right, by simply repeating "it is because it is because it is".
What we must do is go with the observations and what they have to say . . . where they are silent, so must we be silent.
If we follow that rule, then your theory has zero support. Since absolutely nothing in the canon or official material even remotely suggests anything other than DET as the mechanism for the superlaser.
. . . so long as you ignore what we see in the films, and are told in the novels, et cetera.
None of which supports your MUM, no matter how much you say over and over and over and over that it does.
There is no visual evidence for DET.
Other than Alderaan violently exploding after the superlaser strikes the planet, that is.
The only thing which allows for DET is if you take the most simplistic approach possible
Such as watching the movie and seeing what's up on the screen.
On the other hand, if you actually watch the film, and pay attention to those annoying details like rings, bands, clouds, et cetera, you might just end up realizing the plain and simple fact that pure DET didn't happen.
Right. The beam makes contact with the periphery of the atmosphere but does not affect it, somehow cascades into an umbrella enveloping the planet which then somehow sinks into the mass of the planet or induces some secondary nuclear reaction in non-fissionable or non-fusionable matter, and
then causes Alderaan to violently explode. This to you is a simpler and more rational theory than Direct Energy Transfer?
Not only do you not realize the numbers involved, but you also want to claim that CAM is not conserved, or (even worse) that I don't think so.
Yet another strawman. I am making no such argument. You however have been ducking the question.
Now, if the superlaser had magically halted Alderaan's spin, and magically converted around a thousandth of that energy into acceleration of a millionth of the planet's mass, you might have something. However, that's a little outside the parameters of a DET device, wouldn't you say?
It is precisely
because of Conservation of Angular Momentum that the inertial motion of Alderaan's spin remains in force even as the planet is exploding. Tangental geometry dictates that matter imparted along a given vector will continue along that vector. The vapourised material ejected from the equatorial region of the planet would propagate outward along the planet's rotational plane, given additional momentum by the force of Alderaan's disruption. There is no magic involved, and certainly no necessity to invoke MUMs. The rings of material tossed off by supernovae (see SN1987A, to name but one example) certainly do not require MUMs as the mechanics of their propagation, and are very much governed by Conservation of Angular Momentum.
By contrast, all you offer up is a Mysterious Unknown Force which requires so many variables to make it work that it is ludicrous on its face given that Direct Energy Transfer collapsing a planetary shield and then violently blasting that planet apart is perfectly plausible and with far fewer variables required to support it.
You're trying to say I have flamed you? Puh-leeze. 
